Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that the defendant, after receiving and waiving his Miranda rights, voluntarily made an oral statement to a police officer. To the extent that force was used in order to effectuate the defendant's arrest, we find no basis to disturb the hearing court's determination that any force was sufficiently attenuated from the defendant's subsequent statement so as to eliminate any taint which might otherwise have arisen from it (see, People v Hall, 122 A.D.2d 163; see also, People v Pearson, 106 A.D.2d 588; People v Hill, 17 N.Y.2d 185, 190, cert denied sub nom. Catanzaro v New York, 385 U.S. 875). The defendant's claim at the suppression hearing that he never made any statement was properly found to be irrelevant to the issue of whether the statement he allegedly made was admissible at the trial (see, People v Washington, 68 A.D.2d 90, 98, affd 51 N.Y.2d 214, 221).
We have considered the defendant's other contentions, including the excessiveness of the sentence, and find that they do not warrant modification of the judgment. Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.